Logic-Guided Multistage Inference for Explainable Multidefendant Judgment Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12688v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 03:20:36 GMT
• Title: Logic-Guided Multistage Inference for Explainable Multidefendant Judgment Prediction
• Authors: Xu Zhang, Qinghua Wang, Mengyang Zhao, Fang Wang, Cunquan Qu,
• Abstract summary: We introduce sentencing logic into a pretrained Transformer encoder framework to enhance the intelligent assistance in multidefendant cases.<n>Within this framework an oriented masking mechanism clarifies roles and a comparative data construction strategy improves the model's sensitivity to culpability distinctions.<n>Our proposed masked multistage inference (MMSI) framework, evaluated on the custom IMLJP dataset for intentional injury cases, achieves significant accuracy improvements.
• Score: 7.016142593912547
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Crime disrupts societal stability, making law essential for balance. In multidefendant cases, assigning responsibility is complex and challenges fairness, requiring precise role differentiation. However, judicial phrasing often obscures the roles of the defendants, hindering effective AI-driven analyses. To address this issue, we incorporate sentencing logic into a pretrained Transformer encoder framework to enhance the intelligent assistance in multidefendant cases while ensuring legal interpretability. Within this framework an oriented masking mechanism clarifies roles and a comparative data construction strategy improves the model's sensitivity to culpability distinctions between principals and accomplices. Predicted guilt labels are further incorporated into a regression model through broadcasting, consolidating crime descriptions and court views. Our proposed masked multistage inference (MMSI) framework, evaluated on the custom IMLJP dataset for intentional injury cases, achieves significant accuracy improvements, outperforming baselines in role-based culpability differentiation. This work offers a robust solution for enhancing intelligent judicial systems, with publicly code available.

Related papers

• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• AgenticSimLaw: A Juvenile Courtroom Multi-Agent Debate Simulation for Explainable High-Stakes Tabular Decision Making [0.6218206949753592]
  We introduce AgenticSimLaw, a role-structured, multi-agent debate framework that provides transparent and controllable testtime reasoning.<n>Unlike black-box approaches, our courtroom-style orchestration explicitly defines agent roles.<n>We benchmark this framework on young adult recidivism prediction using the NLSY97 dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T16:26:10Z)
• Soppia: A Structured Prompting Framework for the Proportional Assessment of Non-Pecuniary Damages in Personal Injury Cases [0.0]
  This paper introduces Soppia, a structured prompting framework designed to assist legal professionals in navigating complex legal rules.<n>Using the twelve criteria for non-pecuniary damages established in the Brazilian CLT (Art. 223-G) as a case study, we demonstrate how Soppia operationalizes nuanced legal commands into a practical, replicable, and transparent methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T01:42:38Z)
• Judicial Requirements for Generative AI in Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being integrated into professional domains, yet their limitations in high-stakes fields like law remain poorly understood.<n>This paper defines the core capabilities that an AI system must possess to function as a reliable reasoning tool in judicial decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T09:56:26Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• ASP2LJ : An Adversarial Self-Play Laywer Augmented Legal Judgment Framework [21.003203706712643]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) aims to predict judicial outcomes, including relevant legal charge, terms, and fines.<n>Current datasets, derived from authentic cases, suffer from high human annotation costs and imbalanced distributions.<n>We propose an Adversarial Self-Play Lawyer Augmented Legal Judgment Framework, called ASP2LJ.<n>Our framework enables a judge to reference evolved lawyers' arguments, improving the objectivity, fairness, and rationality of judicial decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T06:55:40Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• Enabling Discriminative Reasoning in LLMs for Legal Judgment Prediction [23.046342240176575]
  We introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. Experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T05:43:15Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law [91.85674537754346]
  Both technical security mechanisms and legal processes serve as mechanisms to deal with misbehaviour according to a set of norms. While they share general similarities, there are also clear differences in how they are defined, act, and the effect they have on subjects. This paper considers the similarities and differences between both types of mechanisms as ways of dealing with misbehaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-08T18:03:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.